Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20
`571-272-7822 Date: December 19, 2025
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC,
`Patent Owner .
`____________
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`2
`JUDGMENT
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss and
`Granting Request for Adverse Judgment After Institution of Trial
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed Petition s in each of the
`above-captioned cases requesting inter partes review of certain claims (“the
`challenged claims”) of the subject U.S. Patents. See, e.g. , IPR2025-00702,
`Paper 1. Mullen Industries LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed Preliminary
`Responses to the Petitions. See, e.g. , IPR2025-00702, Paper 10. Because
`we determined that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in each case ,
`we instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted
`grounds in all of the cases. See, e.g., IPR2025-00702, Paper 11.
` Without seeking prior authorization, Patent Owner filed in each case a
`Motion to Dismiss. Paper 13
`1 (“Motions” or “Mot.”). Patent Owner
`informs us that it has filed statutory disclaimers for all challenged claims.
`See id. at 2; see also id., Exhibit A (Disclaimer in a Patent Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`1 The parties filed the substantively same papers in all of the captioned
`cases. Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to the papers filed in
`IPR2025-00702.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`3
`§ 1.321(a)). Petitioner filed an Opposition, arguing that the Board should
`enter adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) rather than dismissing
`the cases. Paper 14 (“Pet. Opp.”). With ou r authorization, Patent Owner
`filed a Reply (Paper 15, “PO Reply”) and Petitioner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 16, “Pet. Sur -reply”).
` In the Motions, Patent Owner, relying on Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v.
`Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys, Inc. , argues that , “[b]ecause all claims at issue have
`been disclaimed, any case or controversy over the claims is moot ,” and,
`“[a]ccordingly, the IPR[s] should be dismissed.” Mot. 2 (citing Sanofi-
`Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys, Inc. , 933 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019)).
` Sonofi-Aventis pertains to the requirement under Article III of the
`Constitution that there exist a case or controversy to be adjudicated by a
`district court. See Sanofi-Aventis, 933 F.3d at 1372–73. The Board is not a
`district court or any other Article III court, and Patent Owner has not shown
`persuasively that Sanofi-Aventis supports its argument that dismissal, as
`opposed to adverse judgement, is appropriate.
` After Petitioner asserted that the Board should treat the disclaimers as
`requests for adverse judgment, Patent Owner argued th at dismissal is
`appropriate “because [Patent Owner] Mullen filed statutory disclaimers on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`4
`all challenged claims for the sole purpose of avoiding unnecessary burden
`and expense for the Board and the parties. ” PO Reply 2. Patent Owner
`asserts that the challenged claims are only a subset of those at issue in the
`parallel district court litigation, and Patent Owner “elected to disclaim the
`challenged claims and proceed with its district court case on its remaining
`asserted claims in order to expedite that [district court] case .” Id. Patent
`Owner also argues that termination under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72,
`2 rather than
`adverse judgment, is appropriate because the circumstances here are similar
`to Unified Patents Inc. v. Data Scape Ltd., IPR2019-01115, Paper 27 (PTAB
`July 17, 2020), where the inter partes review was dismissed. Id. at 2–3.
` Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that “ Patent Owner’s
`post-institution disclaimer of all challenged claims and voluntary
`abandonment of its defense against each IPR are indisputably ‘[a]ctions
`construed to be a request for adverse judgment.’” Pet. Sur-reply 1 (quoting
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)) (alteration in original). Petitioner asserts, and we
`agree, that the circumstances here are not similar to those of Unified Patents
`
`2 “The Board may terminate a trial without rendering a final written
`decision, where appropriate, including where the trial is consolidated with
`another proceeding or pursuant to a joint request under 35 U.S.C. 317(a)
`or 327(a).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`5
`Inc. v. Data Scape Ltd. See id. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of invalidity of all the
`challenged claims, and the patent owner subsequently (and inexplicably)
`filed a statutory disclaimer. See Unified Patents Inc., IPR2019-01115,
`Paper 27 at 2. The Board noted both the affirmance of the invalidity
`judgment and the statutory disclaimer, and stated “[u]nder these
`circumstances, with no claims remaining to be challenged, we determine that
`it is appropriate to terminate this inter partes review.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.72). Thus, unlike here, that case involved claims subject to a judgment
`of invalidity, whereas here Patent Owner requests that no judgment be
`entered.
` Petitioner—regarding Patent Owner’s assertion that the disclaimers
`were filed to avoid unnecessary burden and expense for the Board and the
`parties—argues that Patent Owner opposed the Petition on the merits and
`waited until after the Board’s institution decisions, thus “causing the Board
`to invest substantial resources to address those arguments and prepare
`hundreds of pages of detailed institution decisions.” Pet. Sur -reply 2–3.
`Petitioner argues that the effort could have been avoided had Patent Owner
`filed disclaimers before institution. Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`6
` Lastly, Petitioner argues that, “[w]ithout entry of adverse judgment,
`Patent Owner could improperly avoid the regulatory framework by, for
`example, pursuing claims that are patentably indistinct from the claims on
`which the Board instituted IPR.” Id. at 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) (“A
`patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with
`the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: (i) A claim that is
`not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim . . . .”)).
` We determine that Petitioner has the better position. Our rules
`provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time
`during a proceeding,” and “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse
`judgment include . . . [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the
`party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). “The
`application of the [adverse judgment] rule on its face does not turn on the
`patentee ’s characterization of its own request.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
` In this case, Patent Owner, after the institution decisions, disclaimed
`the challenged claims such that there are no remaining claims in the trials.
`Patent Owner presents no persuasive reasons why we should not apply
`Rule 42.73 or why termination or dismissal is more appropriate. Under the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`7
`circumstances of these case s, we construe the filing of disclaimers as
`requests for adverse judgment.
`ORDER
` For the foregoing reasons, it is
` ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions to Dismiss are denied; and
` FURTHER ORDERED that adverse judgment is hereby entered
`against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to the
`claims as set forth in the following table.
`Case Patent No. Claims
`IPR2025-00702 10,967,270 B2 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19
`IPR2025-00703 11,033,821 B2 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102
`IPR2025-00737 8,585,476 B2 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17
`IPR2025-00738 9,744,448 B2 1, 3, and 6 –8
`IPR2025-00739 10,179,277 B2 1, 8, 13, and 20
`IPR2025-00740 10,828,559 B2 1, 12, 17, and 20
`IPR2025-00741 11,376,493 B2 1, 12, 17, and 20
`IPR2025-00742 11,904,243 B2 1, 6–10, 14, 17, 22, 24–28, and 30
`IPR2025-00743 11,947,716 B2 1, 8, 16, and 18
`IPR2025-00744 12,019,791 B2 21, 23, 31, 37, 41, and 42
`IPR2025-00745 9,662,582 B2 1, 2, 11 and 13
`IPR2025-00746 10,974,151 B2 1–3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00702 (Patent 10,967,270 B2)
`IPR2025-00703 (Patent 11,033,821 B2)
`IPR2025-00737 (Patent 8,585,476 B2)
`IPR2025-00738 (Patent 9,744,448 B2)
`IPR2025-00739 (Patent 10,179,277 B2)
`IPR2025-00740 (Patent 10,828,559 B2)
`IPR2025-00741 (Patent 11,376,493 B2)
`IPR2025-00742 (Patent 11,904,243 B2)
`IPR2025-00743 (Patent 11,947,716 B2)
`IPR2025-00744 (Patent 12,019,791 B2)
`IPR2025-00745 (Patent 9,662,582 B2)
`IPR2025-00746 (Patent 10,974,151 B2)
`
`8
`PETITIONER:
`
`Lisa Nguyen
`David Tennant
`Kamilah Alexander
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`lisanguyen@paulhastings.com
`davidtennant@paulhastings.com
`kamilah.alexander@allenovery.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Snell
`Brad Scheller
`Reza Dokhanchy
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`pfsnell@mintz.com
`bmscheller@mintz.com
`rdokhanchy@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`